Design step one, this new unadjusted model, shows that in contrast to dating churners, this new stably with her were likely to report get in touch with (b = step one
Second, as well as in the Dining table dos, i introduce descriptive analytics from details that may give an explanation for relationship between relationships churning (counted involving the baseline and you can five-year surveys) and you can dad involvement (mentioned from the 9-12 months survey): relationship high quality (at nine-12 months questionnaire), repartnering (during the nine-12 months questionnaire), and you will childbirth with a brand new mate (between the one to- and you can nine-season surveys, considering the nontemporary characteristics regarding mother or father-child relationships). This type of models are like designs off father wedding discussed earlier. Basic, dating churners, in contrast to the fresh stably with her, stated straight down matchmaking top quality. They also reported so much more repartnering and much more childbirth with a brand new mate. 2nd, matchmaking churners had quantities of relationships top quality, repartnering, and you will childbearing with a brand new spouse that were similar to those people of your own stably split up. 3rd, matchmaking churners said higher relationship top quality, faster repartnering, and less childbearing with a new lover as compared to repartnered. Come across Figs. S1–S3 when you look at the On the internet Capital step 1 getting an instance of these patterns throughout the years.
We now turn to the multivariate analyses to see whether these associations persist after we adjust for a range of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Table 3 estimates mother-reported father involvement at the nine-year survey-contact with the child in the past 30 days, shared responsibility in parenting, and cooperation in parenting-as a function of relationship churning between the baseline and five-year surveys. We turn first to the estimates dating in Long Beach of contact. 605, OR = 4.98, p < .001), and the stably broken up and repartnered were similarly likely to report contact. In Model 2, which adjusts for parents' background characteristics that might be associated with both relationship churning and father involvement, the stably together coefficient is reduced in magnitude (by 30 %) but remains statistically significant. This model shows that the stably together had three times the odds of reporting contact than relationship churners (b = 1.131, OR = 3.10, p < .001).
We turn next to estimates of shared responsibility in parenting. Model 1, the unadjusted model, shows differences in shared responsibility across the four types of relationship historypared with relationship churners, the stably together reported more shared responsibility (b = 1.097, p < .001), the stably broken up reported less shared responsibility (b = –0.151, p < .01), and the repartnered reported less shared responsibility (b = –0.413, p < .001). In Model 2, which adjusts for background characteristics, the stably together coefficient decreases by 26 %. However, all three comparison groups remain statistically different from relationship churners, with the stably together reporting about four-fifths of a standard deviation more shared responsibility (b = 0.814, p < .001), the stably broken up reporting one-fourth of a standard deviation less shared responsibility (b = –0.235, p < .001), and the repartnered reporting two-fifths of a standard deviation less shared responsibility (b = –0.405, p < .001).
Finally, we turn to estimates of cooperation in parenting, and these results are similar to those estimating shared responsibility. The unadjusted association (Model 1) shows that compared with the relationship churners, the stably together reported more cooperation (b = 0.842, p < .001), the stably broken up reported less cooperation (b = –0.131, p < .05), and the repartnered reported less cooperation (b = –0.402, p < .001). These associations persist with the addition of the control variables in Model 2pared with the churners, the stably together reported more than one-half of a standard deviation more shared responsibility (b = 0.567, p < .001), the stably broken up reported one-fourth of a standard deviation less shared responsibility (b = –0.214, p < .001), and the repartnered reported one-third of a standard deviation less shared responsibility (b = –0.353, p < .001).